delete_shape

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose destructive nature beyond 'Remove', nor does it mention reversibility, permissions, or error behavior. The unrelated coordinate information does not contribute to behavioral transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence is concise and effective, but the second sentence about coordinates is unrelated to the tool's parameters and adds noise, violating the 'every sentence earns its place' principle.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema, the description doesn't explain operation outcomes, idempotency, or side effects. The tool is simple but the description is incomplete and includes irrelevant coordinate context that distracts from core functionality.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaning to shape_id by specifying it is the id returned at commit time, which is not in the schema. However, the coordinate sentence is irrelevant and could confuse parameter expectations.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the verb 'Remove', the resource 'committed shape', and the identifier 'id returned when it was committed'. It distinguishes from siblings like edit_shape by focusing on deletion of committed shapes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about when deletion is appropriate, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to sibling tools like cut_out or edit_shape.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.